News, Events, Local News-PCOB Meeting and OIM Termination Resolution

Oct 16 - Special PCOB Meeting

After reviewing last night's PCOB meeting, I think we should be reminded of the intent of the Resolution coming to the Common Council meeting on Tuesday for a vote, and we should also address the impact on any potential resolution with a budgetary ask.

Council Resolution:

1. Terminates the extension of the provisional appointment of Aeiramique Glass as Interim Independent Police Monitor effective immediately.
2.  The Common Council Chief of Staff is given the responsibility to supervise the staff of the Office of the Independent Monitor until a permanent Independent Police Monitor is hired or until further order of the Common Council.
3.  Initiates a scope of work with the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE)

I sponsored and support these actions for three reasons:

• First, the work expected under the provisional appointment extended by the Common Council has not been fulfilled.
• Second, I have full confidence in Dr. Kapusta Pofahl's leadership and her extensive experience working with the Board since its inception, when the Common Council entrusted her with supporting its establishment.
• Third, we have the support of NACOLE, a national organization with expertise in civilian oversight, to help the City and community navigate this transition.

Rather than write another blog explaining how we arrived at this point, I encourage you to read the perspectives shared by my colleagues. Their posts reflect many of the concerns and considerations that inform my position:

• Alder Vidaver: To Preserve Civilian Oversight in Madison, Interim Monitor Glass Must Go
• Alder Lieberman: On The Vote to Terminate Interim Independent Police Monitor Aeramique Glass
• Alder Martinez-Rutherford: Police Oversight & The Office of The Independent Monitor
• Alder Ochowicz: About the resolution to terminate Interim Monitor Glass' appointment

The PCOB's $40,000 proposal for Council to support the services of Independent Counsel:

Before considering this request, we must address two important issues: our budgetary constraints and the purpose of the proposed expenditure.

1. The 2026 budget and ERIP

Allocating additional funds in 2026 must be considered in the context of the Expenditure Restraint Incentive Program (ERIP). Any additional spending needs to be evaluated against the City's existing financial obligations, unplanned emergencies, and the potential consequences of exceeding applicable expenditure limits. For more details, visit my "Hola ERIP" blog.

2. What is the purpose of the proposed expenditure?

The justification provided by the resolution and some committee members raises concerns that the proposed funding is intended to continue challenging the Council's legal authority to terminate the provisional appointment.

As expressed during the discussion, the reasoning included the following:

"Because we are in it for the long haul and if it has to go on for a vote in November, still gives us the legal right, if it's voted on, to seek counsel about what happened and retroactively respond."

If Tuesday's vote affirms the termination, Ms. Glass retains the right to pursue legal action and challenge the City's authority in court. The courts would ultimately decide the legal merits of that challenge. I question whether using City funds for the proposed purpose is appropriate, especially when the Council is already seeking independent, national expertise on civilian oversight.

We need to distinguish between funding the work necessary to strengthen police oversight and funding an effort to contest a decision made by the elected Common Council. Those are not the same objective, and the distinction matters when we are responsible for public funds.

3. Madison vs Rochester staffing model

It takes more than the number of staff positions when comparing Madison's oversight structure with Rochester's. We must also examine how each oversight body is governed, who supervises its staff, how it is funded, and the ordinance that mandates its framework.

For example, Rochester's Police Accountability Board (PAB) reports directly to the City Council; no board sits between them. Wisconsin State law needs to be compared to New York's. Madison and Rochester's applicable ordinances may create a different legal and governmental framework. More importantly, Rochester's funding sources and process may differ significantly from the budgetary restrictions that apply to Wisconsin municipalities. These structural differences cannot be ignored when comparing the two systems.

Image credit: Rochester's Budget page

4. Let the national experts help us establish the path forward

Tuesday's Resolution brings NACOLE into the process. That is an important step. Before considering additional budgetary requests for the Office and the Board, I intend to allow the experts to gather the necessary information, assess the current structure, and help identify a path forward. Madison needs effective civilian police oversight now more than ever. We need a structure that is legally sound, operationally effective, transparent, and worthy of public trust.

I remain confident in the purpose established for this office: "Providing civilian oversight of the Madison Police Department (MPD) and ensuring that the MPD is accountable and responsive to the needs and concerns of all segments of the community, thereby building and strengthening trust in the MPD throughout the community." That mission must remain our priority.

5. We need to resolve our legal disagreements and move forward

Finally, Alder Glenn stated that "Many city lawyers disagree with Attorney Haas' interpretation of City ordinances 5.19 and 5.20." If you are one of the "many lawyers," I strongly encourage you to contact the City Attorney's Office to discuss the ordinances directly with Attorney Haas. I have received many opinions from the public, but they lack the backing of a lawyer's interpretation.

I would rather focus on the work needed to secure the future of police oversight than continue expending energy on disputes that prevent progress. We should focus on the integrity of investigations, robust community engagement, transparency, accountability for everyone involved, and restoring and maintaining public trust.

Police oversight is too important to allow disagreements over governance to overshadow the work the community expects us to do.

Click here to listen to the full discussion from last night's PCOB meeting.

As for the legality of the Resolution:

1. The Council's authority and commitment to police oversight:
   1. The Council created the ordinances establishing this office. As the legislative body, the Council has the authority to amend or repeal those ordinances.
   2. This Council's commitment to police oversight has been clear. We support police oversight, and no evidence suggests otherwise.
2. The ordinance gives the Police Civilian Oversight Board (PCOB) the authority to recruit, appoint, and supervise the Independent Monitor. The applicable agreement and contract terms, not the ordinance, govern the process for ending an employment arrangement.
   1. The agreement between Ms. Glass and the City was for a limited period, which expired in June.
   2. Without Council intervention, Ms. Glass's services would have ended in June.
   3. The Council extended the agreement with the expectation that the assigned work, primarily serving as the hiring manager during the recruitment process, would be completed.

In Closing:

Alders are committed to this work, as are the agencies across the City that support these efforts. Thank you to everyone who has engaged on this matter and for your continued commitment to police oversight, regardless of how you feel about my vote. Have a great rest of your weekend! Y-FC